Good film dragged down by one character

Scoop (2006)
Starring: Scarlett Johansson, Hugh Jackman, Woody Allen, and Ian McShane
Director: Woody Allen
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Sondra (Johansson), a bubble-headed journalism student, is contacted by the ghost of recently deceased journalist Joe Strombel (McShane). He wants her to write the scoop he didn't have a chance to: That the dashing and handsome man-about-town Peter Lyman (Jackman) is actually a serial killer. With the help of a third-rate magician (Allen), Sondra goes about getting close to Lyman in order to gather the evidence needed to prove Strombel's accusation from beyond the grave, and get her scoop of a lifetime. But what will Sondra do once she starts falling in love with Lyman?


"Scoop" is a lightweight mystery comedy. The mystery isn't really much of a mystery, and the comedy is of a type that will make you smile rather than laugh.

The characters are, for the most part, well enough acted and the story moves along in a straight-forward fashion, unburdened by a desire on the part of the writer/director to show off his cleverness by throwing in either painfully predictable "twists", or developments that are completely unsupported by the plot. Allen avoids the very thing that dooms many movies of this type that are being made by younger, hipper filmmakers. My hat is off to him for not trying to make this movie seem any deeper than it is, but simply letting it stand as the plain little movie that it is.

I am also impressed by the way that an element of the film that bothered me at the beginning turned out to be one that I very much enjoyed by the end. There are scenes of characters on board Charon's barge as it crosses into the Afterlife, and the first couple of times Allen cut to this mystical scene, I was irritated, because I didn't feel it fit the nature of the film, despite the fact thee's a ghost popping in and out of the story. I felt it was too much of a fantasy element for a film that is, basically, grounded in the modern, everyday world.

However, by the end of the film, Allen pays off the River Styx scenes to the point where, looking back, they're probably the funnest part of the film.

One thing that isn't as fun is the character Allen plays in the film. His character is so socially awkward and downright dumb that it's painfully embarrassing to watch him attempt to mingle at the parties Sondra drags him to in her quest for dirt on Peter Lyman. It also doesn't help anything that there doesn't seem to be a connection between Allen and Johansson on screen--yes, they are delivering lines from the same script on the same set, but there's no sense that either actor is really paying attention to what the other actor is saying or doing. There's no spark between the two and the comedic timing of every scene they have together is likewise off.

(It's tempting to say that Allen has "lost it" now that he's in his 70s, but this isn't so. He does fine in his scene with McShane, and he's okay when interacting with bit players and even Jackman... there simply seems to be something absent between him and Johansson. However, Allen must be happy with the result, because Johannsson starred in at least one more Allen production.)

I think anyone who enjoys watching the lighthearted mysteries from the 1930s and 1940s will get a kick out of "Scoop". Those out there looking for a film with "twists" or lots of sex and violence are going to be bored. (Although Johansson fiills out a swimsuit quite nicely.)

The mystery is how this movie ended up so bad

 

The Black Dahlia (2005)
Stars: Josh Hartnett, Aaron Eckhart, Scarlett Johansson, Mia Kirshner, and Hilary Swank
Director: Brian De Palma
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

A publicity-hungry police detective (Eckhart) arranges to have himself and his younger partner (Hartnett) assigned to the grisly murder of a would-be actress (Kirshner). As one detective starts to mysteriously come unglued, the other uncovers not only dark secrets relating to the dead actress, but to his partner as well. 

The Black Dahlia is almost completely devoid of focus. The script moves randomly from plot to subplot to barely relevant stuff, with the Black Dahlia murder being relegated to just above a minor tangent among a whole tangle of plots and subplots. The style of the film also swings widely between filming styles--at some points, it's heavy-handedly apeing the filming styles of the 1930s and 40s (complete with obligatory soft focus on the leading ladies), at others he goes for an almost documentary style detachment, and then there's the incredibly annoying sequence when the camera suddenly takes the POV of what Hartnett's character is seeing, thus putting the audience in his shoes. Not only is this a pointless break in style, it is very badly done. 

And then there's the editing. There isn't a single shot in the film that lasts more than ten seconds and all quick edits and jumping around with the camera angles gets tiresome very fast. 

To make this already weak film as bad as possible, it is further burdened by an ending that is is completely and totally botched, with the solution to the Black Dahlia killing being completely nonsensical and the other Big Revelations not quite fitting with the rest of the story either. 

It's a shame this movie is such a mess, because many of the actors give some great performances that are in step with the film noir/crime drama movies of the 1930s and 1940s. 

 
Aaron Eckhart turns in a great performance as a crooked cop (I'm not spoiling anything here... the Eckhart character is a standard for the kind of movie being emulated) whose life has come to orbit around the one decent thing he's done in his life... the rescue of a young woman from a life prostitution (Johansson). It's a shame his performance and character are undermined by the awful script that introduces a late-movie twist that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 

And then there's the hero of the tale, Hartnett's good-hearted, honest cop who is irrevokably tainted by the evil he encounters in the course of this film. His character is in genre, except that he spends too much time crying; it's okay for him to be sensitive, caring, and concerned with justice, but he shouldn't be getting weepy all the time. His character is, unfortunately, also undermined by the botched ending in the film and a particularly stupid scene where he shoots up the home of Swank's character. 

Someone couldn’t make up their mind what they were doing with this movie. Whatever potential it may have had is ruined by an inconsistent visual tone and a script that is messy, unfocused and internally inconsistent. It's a film that deserved to bomb and it's one that isn't worth the 2+ hours it's going to suck away from your life. It's one of those incompetently made films that falls in a zone of mediocrity that leaves it with no worthwhile aspect. 

In fact, the only Brian De Palma film worse than this one is his 2006 follow-up, Redacted. It's even more halfbaked than this one. 

'Knives Out' is a great Who-Dunnit

Knives Out (2019)
Starring: Ana de Armas, Daniel Craig, Chris Evans, Jamie Lee Curtis, Don Johnson, Michael Shannon, Christopher Plummer, and LaKeith Stanfield
Director: Rian Johnson
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

The famous private detective Benoit Blanc (Craig) teams with the local police to untangle the circumstances surrounding the death of an eccentric mystery writer (Plummer).

"Knives Out" is fun, tightly scripted update of the classic mystery novels/detective films where most of the characters in the tale had reason to see the victim dead, and the detective politely (for the most part) talks his way to unmasking the killer through interrogations in drawing rooms. Its main location is a throwback to both Agatha Christie novels and the Dark Old House movies of the 1920s and 1930s, while its all-star ensemble cast is like revisiting the movies of this genre from the 1970s and 1980s. Yet, with all these classic elements that will fill mystery movie lovers with nostalgia, this is a thoroughly modern story.

At all times, the film treats the "drawing room detective" and surrounding tropes with a level of respect that is rarely seen anymore, but, like the best films when the genre was in its heyday, it does it with equal degrees of drama and humor as it unfolds. There are many laugh-out-loud one-liners in the film, as well as a number of funny situations (my personal favorite is when the police detective played by LaKeith Stanfield declares "That was the dumbest car chase ever.", as the mystery is at its most convoluted), but the film never mocks or gets self-ironic with its subject matter--except in cases where characters are commenting on themselves.

Another element that makes "Knives Out" a great experience is that it plays fair. All the clues to the identity of the murderer (if there even was a murderer, because the victim's death would just have been written off as a suicide if a mysterious person hadn't sent Benoit Blanc an envelope of cash to investigate) are out there in the open, and all the stray bits that somehow relate to either including or excluding possible suspects as the story unfolds, eventually come into play. Even an apparent comment made by the man who will soon be a corpse in sorrowful reflection on his advanced age and the state of his family ends up being echoed with great effectiveness in the movie's climax.

At one point, I felt "Knives Out" was playing a little too fair with the viewers, because I thought I had figured out who the killer was early on--and even as more complications were thrown in and more actual details came to light, I remained certain I had guessed correctly. A few twists later, and I no longer cared if I was right or wrong... the ride to the solution getting more and more exciting and fun (and funny), and even if I thought I had the who, I still didn't have the complete how or why. Like Blanc says at one point, in what must be the most hilariously tortured metaphor in cinematic history, "Knives Out" was like a donut with a hole, within which another donut fit but it also has a hole...

If you enjoy classic murder mysteries and "who-dunnits" with an emphasis on wit, "Knives Out" is a great way to spend a couple of hours.

A great film about 'Bad Times at the El Royale'

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Cynthia Erivo, Jon Hamm, Lewis Pullman, Dakota Johnson, Chris Hemsworth, and Cailee Spaeny
Director: Drew Goddard
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

Four people (Bridges, Erivo, Hamm, and Johnson) check into the El Royale, a motel built across the California/Nevada state line. Each one of them has secrets, including the motel... and before the night is over, all those secrets will be revealed and writ large in blood.

Some films are nearly impossible to review without spoiling them... and "Bad Times at the El Royale" is one such picture. While it's visually gorgeous and expertly filmed; while the set design is perfect; while every actor gives a great performance, surrounded and supported by perfectly designed sets, which combine to bring to life a tightly woven tale about the most consequential night in the lives of the main characters... while all those things make the film worth watching, the real excitement comes from seeing the secrets come to light and discovering who these people really are. And if I were to comment on those, I would rob you of the greatest pleasure this film has to offer.

The clearest evidence that it's the revealing of secrets that drives this film is the way the film seems to slow down when Chris Hemsworth's character (Billy Lee) arrives on the scene, during the final act. It's a character that's pivotal to the story, and closely tied to the secrets held by a couple other characters, but Billy Lee himself has no hidden aspects to show. Further, his role in the story as the final catalyst to bring everything to a head is plain even before he arrives at the motel, so, even though the action around him is tense and thrilling, I found myself wishing the movie would get going toward the conclusion that was already foregone at that point. (Yes... there could have been another twist or two--and there was a split-second where I thought writer/director/producer Drew Goddard was going to introduce one--but he didn't.)

Hemsworth and the sequence involving him were absolutely necessary--this is a movie where EVERY second of screen time matters and is used to its fullest extent--it just isn't as engaging as what's led up to it, because there isn't any "oh wow!" moments in it. In a movie where even a motel has multiple secrets to surrender, the guy who is completely transparent is just a little dull, no matter how dangerous the character is, nor how brilliantly he is brought to life the actor.

Although I just spent who paragraphs being negative, I want to stress that this is the only thing I can be negative about with this movie without engaging in some serious nitpicking. If you like the film noir genre, if you like well-done and creatively executed thrillers, then I think you absolutely must see "Bad Times at the El Royale". Heck, this is a movie where even the title is perfect... it refers not only to the night the main characters are about to have, but to the decline of the motel itself.

'Hangman' is not worth your time

Hangman (2017)
Starring: Carl Urban, Brittany Snow, and Al Pacino
Director: Johnny Martin
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

A retired police detective (Pacino), a criminal profiler (Urban), and an investigative journalist (Snow) are drawn into a twisted game by a serial killer with ties to the past of one or more of them.

"Hangman" is a lazily written movie that stands at the intersection between the thriller, the police procedural, and the horror movie, in that it has elements of all three genres and deploys them all in a mediocre fashion. The cast gives the weak script the performances it deserves, with no one being especially good or bad... although Pacino pretty much just walks through a role he's probably played a dozen times in his career, so I suppose he gets a point for consistency and predictability if you're watching because you're a fan of his.

Although purely mediocre for most of its running time, it's the last five seconds that push the movie down from the low-end of average to just bad due to a misguided attempt to tack on a shock ending, or maybe leave the door open for a sequel. Whatever the motivation for the truly stupid final moment, it wipes away what little "Hangman" had going for it.

Unless you come across this turkey late night on cable, or you've watched everything there is to see on Amazon Prime or Netflix, you should avoid "Hangman." It is not worth your time.

Gay porn + Hitler = Murder (and Hilarity)

Loose Cannons (1990) 
Starring: Gene Hackman, Dan Ackroyd, Dom DeLuise, Nancy Travis, and Ronnie Cox
Director: Bob Clark
Rating: Six of Ten Stars 

A hardboiled vice-squad detective (Hackman) is teamed with a not-quite-recovered-from-a-mental-breakdown homicide detective (Ackroyd) to solve a series of bizarre murders linked to the Washington DC porn industry.

 As their investigation unfolds, a plot involving neo-Nazi hitmen, Israeli spies, the German government, and overzealous FBI agents starts unfolding. Solving the case becomes even more complicated as one of the chief witnesses and target for the assassins (DeLuise) is still hoping to cash in on the secret item everyone is after--a hardcore gay porn home-movie featuring Adolf Hitler himself!

How can anyone not like a movie that revolves around the hunt for a vintage homemade gay porn film starring Adolf Hitler? Well, I suppose if you're offended by the idea of Hitler filming himself while romping with fellow Nazis you might not like it... but then you're a terrible human being who deserves to feel offended.

 "Loose Cannons" is a fun ride in the "buddy" picture mold, with some nice twists on the typical "hardboiled cop" character portrayed by Hackman. A worthwhile flick, despite several instances of characters behaving in a stupid fashion to make the plot work.

'Rope' is one of Hitchcock's best

Rope (1948)
Starring: John Dall, Farley Granger, and James Stewart
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

In order to prove their intellectual superiority to themselves, Brandon and Philip (Dall and Granger) strangle  a former classmate. They then hold a party for his family, his girlfriend, and other mutual acquaintances where dinner is served over the place where the body and murder weapon are hidden. As the evening progresses, they drop hints about the deed they've committed, dangling particularly heavy clues in front of their old teacher, the man whose lectures inspired their twisted ideas (Stewart).

"Rope" was Hitchcock's attempt to make a thriller with as few cuts as possible, so it takes place mostly in real time and in two rooms of a New York City apartment. It was an interesting cinematic experiment that is also an excellent psychological thriller. It's also one of those rare movies that is engrossing despite the fact that the film's "heroes" are all extremely unlikable--from the psychopath and his weak-willed follower who murder an innocent man in the film's opening moments, through the arrogant professor who ultimately proves to the killers that they aren't as brilliant as they think they are.

In the hands of lesser director, in a film with less-tight pacing and control, or performances delivered by lesser actors, "Rope" would have been a disaster.